Students are introduced to “-substitution” as yet another exam-question solving technique. That is not wrong, and does make for many challenging questions.
But the reason it is so is massive—the chain rule helps us discover new integrals that we would not have known otherwise.
Let’s first state -substitution, or what I’d like to call, the reverse chain rule.
Theorem 1 (Reverse Chain Rule). Let be (known) differentiable functions. Then letting
Proof. By the chain rule,
The power of the reverse chain rule arises not from its theory—it’s right there—but from its applications. For instance, whenever we have an integrand (i.e. the function being integrated) of the form , we obtain a very useful integral.
Theorem 2. Let be a known differentiable function. Then
Proof. While the result is straightforward, a computation helps us evaluate the integral more conveniently. Let . Then
Here, the notation on the right-hand side is purely formal and not a well-defined mathematical notion. However, this helps us compute the -substitution:
This helps us integrate . Recall that
. It is definitely not the case that
But, we do have the following result:
Corollary 1. .
Proof. The immediate proof is by letting in Theorem 1.
Fleshing out the details, define so that
We also obtain integrals for rational functions of the form and
.
Technically, much more is true, but we will illustrate these simpler cases here, and expand on the “much more” in a future post.
Corollary 2. .
Proof. By writing and decomposing using partial fractions,
Integrating on both sides,
To integrate each component, we observe that . Therefore, Theorem 2 yields
Thus, completing our integration,
where we abbreviated the constant .
As a side-note, this abbreviation also explains why in each iteration of integration, we only need one , since all of the respective arbitrary constants
coalesce into a single arbitrary constant
.
Letting be a linear function also proves to be incredibly useful in integrating such functions.
Theorem 3. Let be a known differentiable function and
be constants with
. Then
Proof. Make the substitution . Then the notation
yields
This helps us take advantage of simpler integrals to compute more complicated integrals.
Corollary 3. For any ,
.
Proof. Make the substitution . Then the notation
yields
where the final equality is left as an exercise in algebruh.
Finally, we can use known trigonometric substitutions by taking advantage of the Pythagorean identity.
Corollary 4. .
Proof. Make the substitution . Then the notation
yields
Sidenote: One might wonder if this could be used to derive the formula . This does not work, since we needed to assume that
is differentiable. If that were the case, then computation just reiterates the differentiation property.
This result, in particular, helps us integrate the reciprocal of non-factorisable quadratic functions.
Corollary 5. For any ,
.
Proof. Make the substitution . Then the notation
yields
Corollary 6. For any ,
.
Proof. Make the substitution . Then the notation
yields
Applications of similar techniques yields the following integral.
Theorem 4. For any ,
.
Finally, no discussion on the reverse chain rule is complete without the notorious integral of .
Theorem 5. .
Proof. By *ingenuity*, make the substitution . Then
yields the integration
Applying similar techniques yields the following integral:
Theorem 6. For any ,
.
Proof. Left as an exercise in *ingenuity*. Just kidding. But yes, an exercise in the reverse chain rule. Here are the hints:
- For
, make the substitution
.
- For
, make the substitution
.
Then invoke Theorem 5 and perform some bookkeeping via algebruh.
Next time, we reverse the product rule.
—Joel Kindiak, 25 Oct 24, 1405H
Leave a reply to What with the +C? – KindiakMath Cancel reply